 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Just wondering if anyone ever used this term to refer to someone with a thousand currency units in the bank? As a kid in the 1970's I remember my parents, who weren't rich but weren't poor (dad was a teacher and mom was a beautician) referring to themselves and other people who had a $1,000 or more in savings as "Thousandaires". Maybe it was a joke that I just didn't get as a kid but I am wondering if the term "Thousandaire" was ever used like the term Millionaire is used now and just fell out of usage because of inflation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 ( talk) 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Frirst millionaire June 13, 2005 - Anyone know who the world's first millionaire is, if it has been documented?
What about hundred millionaires? It is known that there are are about 400 billionaires in the US and anywwhere from 2,000,000 to 16,000,000 millionaires. It seems like billionaires, as a group, are too small to truly represent the ultra-wealthy, while millionaires represent a vast range of wealthiness- from high earning white collar workers who may own a house worth a million dollars to CEOs of large corporations who are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Hundred millionaires can afford private airplanes and several estates, they're a little bit different from your sergeon who has a one acre estate and has to work six days a week to maintain his lifestyle. Hundred millionaires are an order of magnitude wealthier than just plain millionaires and are perhaps more like billionaires in terms of life style and influence. I have been unable to find a source saying how many hundred millionaires there are in the US/world, it would be great if anyone knows anything about it. j
A millionaire is a person who has a net worth or wealth of more than one million United States dollars, euros, UK pounds or units of a similarly valued currency.
Wealth is not precisely defined, and what is a "similarly valued currency"? It appears that there is no good definition of "millionaire". Brianjd 11:09, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
- I also don't think it's clear that the currency needs to be "similarly valued" (if we can even say meaningfully that United States dollars and UK pounds have similar values). The website Whatmillion.com takes a net worth in any of a few currencies, and finds the currency where the holder would be a millionaire (e.g. Vietnamese đồng, Kuwaiti Dinar, etc). I also remember having been in some countries, but can not definitively site examples, where the term is reserved for earnings rather than net worth. TheSparrow 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Who wants to be a Turkish Millionaire?! Ewlyahoocom 22:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The origin of the term millionaire is in revolutionary France where the Assignat currency was so over-inflated that people were described as millionaires and yet were still poor.
CNN Money has reported that as of May 2005 the number of millionaires in the U.S. itself is nearly 7 million. Is this number simply including "paper millionaires," whereas this Wikipedia article is only counting those who have 1 million dollars or over in "cash?" If not then maybe it's time to edit the information! (This comment was left by User:24.16.63.183)
- The CNN report obviously counts "money millionaires." It very clearly states that real estate equity is the most common assets among millionaires in the US. Also, please remember the original research policy. We don't count here; CNN counts, Forbers counts, Merril Lynch counts. We just report the findings of such institutions and thus need to list all their findings, those who include "equity millionaire" and those include "financial asset millionaires." Thanks. Regards, Signature brendel 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, I was the one who had asked this question before creating my Wikipedia account. And thank you for updating/upgrading the article!-- Theelectricchild 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please include the female spelling, millionairess.
And create a Redirect Article millionairess.
Thanks
100110100 08:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Millionairess, like "aviatrix" and "editrix", is thought by most to be archaic and has therefore fallen out of use. But perhaps a mention of the term as such would be interesting (cc:100110100's talk page) -- Seja430 16:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Number od HNWIs (in thousands ) in selected countries from World Wealth Report 2005 and 2006
Country - year 2003, 2004 and 2005
Australia 117 134 146
Brasil 92 98 109
Canada 200 217 232
China 287 300 320
Germany 756 760 767
India 61 70 83
Russia 84 88 103
UK 383 418 448
US 2272 2498 2669
Country -year 2004 and 2005
UAE 53 59
Saudi Arabia 70 80
Country -year 2004
Singapore 49
South Africa 37
Hong Kong 67
South Korea 71
Spain 141
sources: http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/jun/21rich.htm (2006 Report) There are now 8.7 million millionaires on the planet, 6.5 per cent more than there were last year. The report said that United States is the richest nation with 2.67 million millionaires. The other countries with the highest number of HNWIs are: Germany (767,000), the United Kingdom (448,000), China (320,000), Canada (232,000), Australia (146,000), Brazil (109,000), and Russia (103,000). HNWI http://www.fin-rus.com/sector/economics00004009FC/default.asp http://www.us.capgemini.com/DownloadLibrary/files/Capgemini_FSI_WWR06.pdf http://www.us.capgemini.com/DownloadLibrary/files/Capgemini_FSI_WWR05.pdf
--
I am finding these numbers somewhat hard to believe. In the article there was an estimate cited from Barclays I think that said the USA had 16.6m millionaires, that number is way out of line with the other estimates and obviously not in line with the "10m millionaires worldwide" estimate that heads the sections. I think what is happening is many estimates are excluding the value of primary residences. Including these numbers would change things considerably (by word of mouth, I remember hearing that in Madrid as far back as the 1990s, the average 4 person home was worth 4m $US - which would basically mean everyone in Madrid would count). Europe as a whole concentrated on inflating their real estate values before the USA did, and numbers from all such populous countries should probably be in the millions. So I pose this question: do we need to include such dubious numbers at all, without a standard reference? -- 173.66.8.77 ( talk) 22:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
portrays millionaires in the wrong light. most millionaires do not own superexpensive homes, cars, etc. they save money. that's how they got to be millionaires. right now, i'm reading The Millionaire Next Door, and it talks about stuff like that. it's a good book, if anybody wants something to read. Harpiegirl6 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- True. Just about half of all millionaires are retired; meaning that they have simply managed to accumulate one million over the course of their lifes. Most millionaires are middle class people who were smart with their investments and now have a lot os assets. Besdies a most millionaires (By Net Worth) have their assets locked up in real estate; thus their million does not affecting their lifestyles. I think it is also important to remember that the majority of millionaires are not multi-millionaies, meaning that their net worth ranges between one and two million. Regards,
Signature
brendel 23:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I just found out that someone close to me is a millionare and that's why I was reading this article. But the thing is he just found out that he is because a house he bought a long time ago is now sitting on prime real-estate. His networth is now huge but he's the same guy who has to work his ass off for a living. -- 18:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Exactely. The real estate market has been the dirivng force behind the recent increase in millionaires. Fact is that while 7% are millionaires according to net worth only 2.6% actually have assets (other than equity) worth 1 mil or more. The story you shared above is very typical of a modern millionaire. Here in California, house prices increased up to 400% in just five years, leaving many working class people, finding themselves with a net worth of one million or more, because what was once a modest home is now a "California cottege." Personally, I haven't read the book but encourage you to editasseas the article with the info from the book. Regards, Signature brendel 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I just found out that someone close to me is a millionare and that's why I was reading this article. But the thing is he just found out that he is because a house he bought a long time ago is now sitting on prime real-estate. His networth is now huge but he's the same guy who has to work his ass off for a living. -- 18:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The article starts with a false premise - that a millionaire "is a person who resides in a household whose net worth or wealth exceeds one million". So the live-in maid on minimum wage is a millionaire! Similarly, if 10 people live in a house and each have a personal wealth of 100,000, by this definition all of them are millionaires! And this leads to the pointless discussion above based on property (real estate) values. A sensible definition of a millionaire ought to be along the lines of a person having annual income, earned or not, in excess of a million dollars/pounds/whatever and therefore having the appropriate spending power. The poor guy with the inflated house is just that - poor. If he realises his million he's homeless! Emeraude 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- No the maid isn't going to be millionaire but the guy's teenage son or daughter is. Also, yes if ten people w/ $100k live together then they are living in a millionaire household. That's how the US government collects data; by household not individual. Its the same problem with income. Three low-income people live together and their household may be among the top 10% on the income strata. Consider that the majority of households with six-figure incomes wouldn't have them if they didn't have two income eanrers. Who's wealthier a family of four making $120,000 or a family of two making $80,000 a year? There is an inherit flaw in counting the gross total earnings and net worth by household instead of dividing them by household member, but that's how the Departement of Commerce does it. And finally yes, "The poor guy with the inflated house," is by net worth a millionaire. Trust me I live in CA, I see households who make less than $60k in million dollars homes all the time-I know it sounds rediculous to call them millionaires, but according to Gov data they are. How else would almost 8% of Americans get to be millionaires. I agree with you that income should be the definition, as that really affects lifestyle, but unfortunately that's not how the Gov or media sees it. Regards Signature brendel 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that information. However, I'm willing to bet that the Dept of Commerce definition of millionaire isn't the same as the IRS's. Perhaps the first sentence in the article should stipulate that the rest of the article is based on a flawed argument from the DofC and someone can make another article on 'real' millionaires. Emeraude 21:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not really up to re-writing the article now. The thing is that there are different definitions of what a millionaire is. It's also a loaded term and recent deveoplments in the economy have made it possible for "The poor guy with the inflated house" to call himself a millionaire, in terms of net worth. The DofC def isn't really flawed, its based on net worth. The DofC also measured assets, excluding home equite, then only about 2.6% would be millionaires. There are a lot of ways to count wealth, just like there are a lot of ways to count income. If this article was to feature a scientific approach it should eventually look something like my Household income in the United States article. Perhaps we need to mention the image that pops into peoples heads when they hear the word millionaire aside from all the economic stats we can cite. Anyways, feel free to edit the article, this one needs it. Regards, Signature brendel 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your 'sensible definition' appears to have almost come true - in recent years President Obama has talked about "millionaires and billionaires," and has promoted an extra tax on those with income of over a million dollars per year. I've since seen this usage of millionaire (based on income rather than assets). Benbradley ( talk) 03:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
centimillionaire, being someone with 100 million or more. Is this a correct use of the term centimillionaire?? I would have thought a centimillionaire would have a mere $10,000.
- You're right according to the SI system you would expect a centi-millionaire to be worth in tens of thousands. But as far as I can see the term is acutally used to describe people worth in the hundreds of millions. See this Forbes article regarding Bob Hope, whose described as "Just another Centimillionaire" with a net worth between 400 and 700 million. Regards, Signature brendel Now under review! 07:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I did some research on the term "centimillionaire" and sure enough, this is taken to mean more than 100 million. I shall never know why this is the proper term since it goes against the SI system, but such as it is. Anyone know the origin of this term??? If so, it would be interesting to make mention of it in the article Caffeine USA 19:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)slouod
- What sources did you use? Forbes has used it incorrectly time and time again ( http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aforbes.com+centimillionaire). Centi-, the prefix, means 1/100. Centimeter is 1/100 of a meter. Centimillionaire is 1/100 of a millionaire. Yes there are words like "century" which are derived from the use of "cent" (Lation for 100) in the non-inverse way (100 instead of 1/100), but whenever you use the "centi-", as a prefix to modify an existing value, it means 1/100. More info SI_prefix. Perhaps it could be mentioned that Forbes has used it incorrectly many times, and is an unreliable source due to this. (If it becomes mainstream enough, what I have said will be wrong do to the natural change of the English language to coincide with popular belief.) I changed the article. 71.7.199.51 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just google it. The word has its meaning, which is not consistent with how the prefix is otherwise used. But that doesn't mean we get to rewrite the english language. Centimillionaire means worth over 100 million, even if it doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is not a platform for linguistic crusades. :) Euushnkrates 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- True, the term does not follow the SI system. Here centi means 100 times and centimillionaire thus means 100,000,000. Yes, technically that is incorrect following the SI system-but that doesn't apply here. Language doesn't always follow scientific guidelines. Regards, Signature brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:28, 15 Decemberbilloiblj 2006 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a platform for linguistic crusades." Agreed. ... I think the problem comes from the USA's lack of usage with the metric system. I bet most of those Google results are USA. People in countries unfamiliar with the metric system do not see what a POOR choice "centimillionaire" is. It is so clear that "hectomillionaire" is the correct choice. I'm not just saying it is technically correct, I'm saying it is clearly correct, and naturally understood to be correct by anyone familiar with "centi-". It's just odd that the richest nation just happens to be one of the only countries left not using metric... and therefore opting into such a bad choice (out of ignorance). I think Wikipedia "backing" this improper usage is wrong, and should set the stage correctly. 71.7.199.51 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)jhzbkjz. rfbo a/an?
- "but that doesn't apply here..." It applies perfectly. It is used as a modifier of a value (1,000,000) by a value (100)... "hectomillion" = 100,000,000. centimillion = 10,000. This is truth. "-aire" is tagged on afterwards. 71.7.199.51 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I already mentioned that I do understand that usage defines meaning, not technicalities. I'm just not sure the usage is widespread enough. I'm not sure about a lot of this, but I thought I should bring up my thoughts anyways! 71.7.199.51 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is those who use centi- improperly who are rewriting the English language. This is what happens when we let insufficiently educated people who persist in clinging to "freedom units" invent words. Jeepien ( talk) 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hectomillionaire and centimillionaire both equalling $100,000,000 net worth are not mutually exclusive conditions, which means that hectomillionaire is correct no matter what centimillionaire is decided to be. Shouldn't this be added? 71.7.199.51 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
How does one "win" a Wikipedia argument? It appears this argument is over as long as the page retains the edit requested by the other side. Does the page have to be edited back to "hectomillionaire" to force a continuity to this discussion? I'm really unsure how argument or discussion on Wikipedia works. (And I do not mean any offense by this.)
And, to repeat, doesn't hectomillionaire mean one hundred million dollars net worth (despite the technically incorrect usage of centimillionaire to mean the same)? (It does, I just posed that as a question to inspire thought.) They are not exclusive of one another. If so, shouldn't this be noted? (This is actually what I'm unsure of.) Shouldn't it be noted that Forbes is technically incorrect with their usage of the metric system, although being the main force in popularizing it? I wrote an article on my thoughtpo5rs on the matter: http://xona.com/2006/12/17.html 71.7.199.51 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Millionaire" isn't a metric unit, so it's not clear why the SI system should govern the prefixes for term. Of course it's true that the prefix centi- has been appropriated by the metric system to mean 1/100. But the word has much older roots; in Latin, centum means "one hundred" (not "one hundredth") as lives on in such words as century and centurion. The words "million" and "millionaire" come from Romance languages derived from Latin, so you could make the case that "centimillionaire" is more etymologically consistent than a word that uses "hekato", the Greek root for 100. Anyway, centimillionaire enjoys widespread usage beyond Forbes magazine and appears to be the standard term. Cephal-odd ( talk) 17:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hecto equals 100, please don't get them mixed up. Dwilso 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- millionaire is based on million... a number. what would 100,000,000 be called (the NUMBER)? hectomillion. i fail to see how hectomillionaire (and centimillionaire) is not based on SI system. the USA does not use metric, and that's why centimillionaire is used incorrectly so often. 24.224.190.153 ( talk) 13:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- cent may be derived from 100, but you need something that is derived from 100 to construct 1/100. this is poor logic to say cent means 100. a perfect example is the penny (one cent) worth 1/100 of a dollar 24.224.190.153 ( talk) 13:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- forbes is wrong. they don't understand the SI system. http://www.google.com/search?q=hectomillion http://www.google.com/search?q=centimillion "centimillion a word sometimes used incorrectly to mean 100 million (108). This is a serious misuse of the metric prefix centi-, which means 1/100, not 100. The number 100 million could be called a hectomillion or (at least in the U.S.) a decibillion" ~ http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictC.html
- if you are using centi- as a prefix, it is hard to argue that it should not follow with ALL other uses of centi- as a 1/100 prefix. this is just USA ignorance of metric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Metric_system.png 24.224.190.153 ( talk) 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's unfair to categorize all Americans as being ignorant when the only ones who have made the mistake are a small number of American journalists. I'm a well-read American (but I don't read Forbes) and the only term I can remember reading is multimillionaire; I can't ever remember reading heca- or hectomillionaire, other than these few articles in The Reg. We should remember that a long time ago when a hundred thousand was a lot of money, the term hundred grand or hundred G's was used. It's a colloquial expression and had no basis on any particular system, but its meaning was understood by most people. The same applies to centi- or whatever millionaire. 204.75.251.6 ( talk) 21:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
A few points:
1. Numbers vs. words. One million is indeed a number, but the article is about words that describe people owning certain amounts of money, which isn't exactly the same thing. Are "hectomillion" or "centimillion" in widespread use to refer to 10^8? Usually we say "100 million".
2. SI jurisdiction. The SI system governs the names of SI units, not the names of all numbers everywhere. Certainly centi- means 1/100 in those units, but it would be metric imperialism to claim that SI rules apply to every word and number. The claim that centi- never means 100 is incorrect. (See #4)
3. Knowledge of metric. The hypothesis that the name stemmed from lack of SI knowledge is interesting, but I suspect it's incorrect. It's true that the metric system isn't predominant in the United States, but the editors of Forbes etc. probably studied science in school at some point and know that a centimeter is 1/100 of a meter. "Cent" as 1/100 of $1 is also a good example. It's more likely that "centimillionaire" arose because of the custom of using centi- in words with Latin roots (see below).
4. Latin vs. Greek roots. The cent- prefix often means 100 in words with Latin roots, since centum means 100. Hence, the name centipede implies 100 legs rather than 1/100 of a leg, and a centennial celebrates the passage of 100 years, not 3.65 days (1/100 of a year)! The hecto- prefix denoted 100 in classic Greek, and signifes 100 in words of Greek derivation, as well as in the names of SI units.
As explained in an earlier posting above, millionaire derives from Latin roots, so I think the traditional name "centimillionaire" is appropriate. Cheers, Cephal-odd ( talk) 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
These are good points. However...
Hectomillion and centimillion are indeed both not used very often. However, they are, globally, both used about equally as often. Centimillion is used most often in the US, and Hectomillion is used most often in the rest of the world. This is because of the US being one of only 3 countries left in the world that still does not use the metric system. The reason the use of centimillion is even on equal use as hectomillion is because of the US’ dominance in the global media market.
When talking about the SI system, one should know something about what it is. The SI system is the "Système International d’Unités" also known as the International System of Units. Yes, the Metric system is “based” the SI System. Units "ARE" the names of numbers everywhere, that is their definition. Centi- does mean 1/100 of "any" units and nothing else.
When referring to the Latin language there ends up being a bit of confusion. The prefix cent- comes from two words in the Latin language: “Centum” and “centesimus”. Centum means one hundred (100) and centesimus means one hundredth (1/100). Mostly it comes from centum. The use of this prefix is largely defined by the context in which it’s used.
The example of “Cent” as 1/100 of $1 is actually a very bad example. The word “Cent” for monetary purposes actually comes from the US Continental Congress in the 1780s. It was suggested by Robert Morris in 1782 with regards to a different currency plan and was finally adopted for the current US currency plan by the US Continental Congress in 1786. Robert Morris’ suggestion was influenced by the word “percent” which again comes from the Latin words “per centum” (by the hundred). Ironically when he suggested the shortened form “cent” it removed the “per-” from the word which is what makes it mean “by the” hundred.
The example of the word centipede implying 100 legs rather than 1/100 of a leg is also a bad example. The word centipede meaning 100 legs rather than 1/100 of a leg is correct, however, as with the other examples, the word "centipede" has the prefix cent-, "not" centi-. The breakdown of the word centipede is as such: cent-i-pede.
This isn’t a Greek vs. Latin issue. The SI prefixes come from various sources, Greek, Latin, French, and others. This is a “numbers” issue. This is a “unit” issue. The word millionaire refers to someone who has a million dollars. The word million actually comes from the SI System (meaning 1 000 000). The prefix hecto- comes also from the SI System meaning hundred. When we combine the word hundred and the word million we need to correctly call it hectomillion. Centimillion “IS” and always should be 10 000. So we can’t use the word million and ignore the other proper prefixes within that same system.
Ignorance of correct language doesn’t make it right. Centimillionaire is still wrong. However, the english language is a dynamic language, constantly changing its meanings based on usage and popular acceptance. The use is currently wrong but is in danger of becoming right. The acceptance of centimillion or centimillionaire meaning one hundred million will only serve to confuse the use of proper prefixes when centi- (with an ‘i’) in all other words means one hundredth. If the public would like to change the word to centmillion (without the ‘i’) then that would be correct.
In conclusion, there is nowhere in the english language where the prefix “centi-” means one hundred. It always means one hundredth. I think there should be a section in this article with regards to the term hectomillionaire and centimillionaire and explain from where the confusion stems. I have done this, and I hope that people will edit it. Make it well explained, and grammatically correct instead of just removing the section all together.
Here is a list of online references that back up my information:
Hectomillionaire vs. Centimillionaire I found this page has a very good explanation of the differences and confusions as well. Bohuiginn ( talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be universal acceptance of a definition that excludes the equity built up in a primary residence. Here are some problems with that:
- Allows individual control of whether they qualify for "millionaire" category. Example: I live in a $900k home. I have $500k in equity, and another $500k in non-residence assets. If I decide to sell my home and move into a rental apartment, I get to be a millionaire (woo hoo)! Or I can appear to be worth zero by investing what is left of my non-house assets in a $1.4 million home. kagdy
- Discredits individual's wealth building skills when their knowledge and timing of investment in real estate happens to be connected with their strategy for acquiring a primary residence. Example, I timed my purchase of my primary residence for the 90's real estate recovery. But according to the definition, I have failed to create 1 million in wealth because my savings and investment vehicle was my home. Again, why should ownership or liquidation of a primary residence be able to "swing the meter" from millionaire, to "poor", then back to millionaire? The same skills and principles of building wealth are employed in either case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.57.19.103 ( talk) 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
- Why? Becuase markets arn't always rational. Luck is -this goes not just for the real estate market- the most important factor in deciciding what makes people rich. Talent and effort will make you affluent, but you need to luck to become rich. As for the universal acceptance, it doesn't exsist. The word millionaire may refer to persons such as yourself in the example above, or just to those with liquid assets worth $1 million or more. It depends on context. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley, for example, class all net worth millionaries, rich - yet others don't. There simply isn't a consensus on this issue and our article needs to reflect that. Thanks for your input. Regards,
Signature
brendel 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Gearing and timing are more important than luck. I read somewhere that the wealthy people have the higher proportionate amount of borrowings.
80.2.201.161 (
talk) 14:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's called " Leverage". Folk with high net worth will find it far easier to borrow money than those with no assets - see Credit Risk. DrVxD ( talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Gearing and timing are more important than luck. I read somewhere that the wealthy people have the higher proportionate amount of borrowings.
80.2.201.161 (
talk) 14:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The following comment appears in the Currency section above: "I also remember having been in some countries, but can not definitively site examples, where the term is reserved for earnings rather than net worth. TheSparrow 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)."
Anyone in the U.S. who has listened to television or the radio during the last 6 months or so has heard the term "millionaire" used to mean one whose INCOME is one million dollars or more. Today I tried to find out when the meaning of the word changed, and after half an hour on Google, I haven't found anything about it. Am I the only one who has noticed this change? The comment I quote above is the only acknowledgment I have found, and it's from 2006! 216.179.1.82 ( talk) 06:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I split off a separate section to discuss various distinctions in the use of the word millionaire. The "middle-class millionaire" bit might be unique to the US and Canada, haven't really researched it yet though. Feel free to take out the Onion video if it seems inappropriate - just didn't want anyone crying neologism on me. Luatha 02:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)oiuh uha uua habhri hiegja ufd
- I think this section should be deleted. None of the terms described (except "multimillionnaire") are in widespread use. Even mMillionaire was only a flash in the pan. Multimillionnaire is described later in the article. Would anyone object to its deletion? -- Surturz ( talk) 07:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed a few articles in news sites regarding centimillionaires and as there will be more and more people becoming deca- and hecto- millionaires there will be more and more use of this term. And even if it isn't used that often, wikipedia should be a source for the proper use of the prefixes of multimillionaires. So I've added back the original paragraph, with a slight addition. Brendan OhUiginn ( talk) 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
At the top we see "A multimillionaire has a net worth of more than 2 million units of currency," futher down the page we see "Another commonly used term is Multimillionaire. As the term implies, multimillionaire applies to those individuals residing in households with a net worth or wealth of 10 million or more units of currency." they cannot both be right. 193.34.186.161 ( talk) 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think a multimillionaire is someone with more than 2 million. I have never heard it defined as 10 million. And, as a side note, there must be lots of dollar millionaire households in the UK, since $1M is only £500000, which is only £250000 each for a couple. Since the average UK home costs about £190000, then two adults who both own a slightly better than average home could easily form a $1M household. Even though I live in a below average town, there are dozens of houses here that cost more than the equivalent of $1M. Property here is much more expensive than the US unfortunately. 80.2.201.161 ( talk) 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
No one uses multimillionaire to mean 10 million units. It's 2 million or greater. Hence "multi". In the same vein, no one uses multibillionaire only for those with more than 10 billion units of currency. 68.52.96.191 ( talk) 19:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Would be nice to have an article on this, or the self-made billionaire, since anyone can inherit but it takes real ability, daring and chutzpah (sp?) to make it yourself. 80.2.201.161 ( talk) 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- It probably out to just redirect to Warren Buffet :) DrVxD ( talk) 17:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The article says "scotland has more female millionaires than male" and currently this has no citation. Would this be a good one? Spacerat3004 ( talk) 23:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
"Paper millionnaire" redirects here. However, the article completely fails to explain what a paper millionaire is, and consequently I still have no clue. Could someone who does know this fix it? Thanks! :-) Gijs Kruitbosch ( talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
None of this material belongs in the section on net worth:
While millionaires constitute only a small percentage of the population, they hold substantial control over economic resources with the most powerful and prominent individuals usually ranking among them. Also, the total amount of money held by millionaires can equal the same amount of money held by a far higher number of poor people. The Gini coefficient, and other measures in economics, estimated for each country, are useful for figuring out how many of the poorest people have the equivalent total wealth of the few richest in the country. Forbes and Fortune magazines maintain lists of people based on their net worth and are generally considered authorities on the subject. According to Forbes' latest annual list of the World's Billionaires published in March 2008 there are currently 1125 members of the exclusive Billionaire's club US-dollar billionaires in the world.
Sixteen percent of millionaires inherited their fortunes. Forty-seven percent of millionaires are business owners. Twenty-three percent of the world's millionaires got that way through paid work, consisting mostly of skilled professionals or managers.[8] 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Trump is pictured among those who earned their wealth as entrepreneurs. Trump inherited a large fortune. I've read reports that if he had invested his inheritance in T-Bills he would be even richer today. How about we swap him out for a less ambiguous personage? LK ( talk) 07:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The Deloitte "report" seems to be fringe as it contradicts the Merril Lynch and Capgemini reports (as well as tax agency data) by over-stating the numbers 4 to 5 times. It also claims that almost 10% of US Households (about 150 million Households in total) have a net worth of more than one million, which is absurd and is contradicted by all other sources. It is especially ironic given that the average and median yearly household income (pre-tax) is about $40000, and the top 10% earn about $100000 (before taxes and other fees/expenses).
The above-mentioned information was pushed by a blocked sockpupeteer (BigSean300), and has been reverted multiple times. I have restored the more realistic and reliable, sourced info.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 20:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have also removed the whole section on "How to become a millionaire".
- It is shocking that it wasn't removed before.
- First and foremost, it does not belong in an encyclopedia, and it looks like it was written by a first-grader. Not surprisingly, it was also added by the blocked sock-puppet.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As millionaire must be considered the person and not the householder. 151.40.127.0 ( talk) 09:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The article published the data of Wealth Insight and not the data of Cap Gemini for RBC which are the most famous and strict.Here are published a second level numbers ,just not to say rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.114.178 ( talk) 07:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I posted all numbers.I'm unable to set the reference that is anyway "World wealth report 2013" by Capgemini RBC.All years Wikipedia used this criteria and not the Wealth Insight lower level data.
- You have to cite the actual reference in order to present the chart. You can't cite The Guardian article, because it does not contain the Capgemini-RBC chart.-- Sedssles1 ( talk) 10:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The picture is pretty, and better than nothing, but the caption does nothing to tell me what it might have to do, if anything, with the subject of the article. -- ke4roh ( talk) 17:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Millionaire. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070701184758/http://money.cnn.com:80/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2007/07/01/100116670/ to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2007/07/01/100116670/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I care about there are how many Millionaires in the world, but not in the USA.
Most powerful empires can last for 200 years. The dumb America get no chance to last for 100 years as superpower, that is 1945 - 2045. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicmind7 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC) wtf man
The difficulty with assessing the number of millionaires by country is that these sorts of people are encouraged to take multiple citizenship, thereby distorting the number of millionaires appearing in the world. 203.171.41.45 ( talk) 22:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I've removed a few sentences from the "Multimillionaire" section and changed the text from "hectomillionaire" to "centimillionaire":
- "Individuals with net assets of 100 million or more of a currency have been termed hectomillionaires.[19]". The ref is a 2009 Forbes article but Forbes hasn't used that term since 2013 (4 search results from 2009-2013) in favour of "centimillionaire" (127 search results from 2007 to 2021). Merriam-Webster doesn't list the "hecto-" version as a word but does have "centi-". I've changed the text to reflect the more common usage of "centimillionaire" using the dictionary as a ref, and updated the "hectomillionaire" ref to a more recent (2013) Forbes article.
- "The term centimillionaire has in America gained an improper informal synonymous usage with hectomillionaire, despite the centi- prefix meaning the one hundredth part, not hundredfold, in the metric system.[20]": The ref is a 2006 blog post from an employee of Xona Games and I doubt it meets WP:RS. Wiktionary gives the etymology of "centimillionaire" as Latin "centi-" (="hundred"), not "centi-" the SI prefix for 1/100th in the metric system. I note that "million" is a similarly Latin-derived word (via French) and is also not an SI unit, and "centimillionaire" means "100 million" using a Latin etymology. I've removed the sentence as it appears to be incorrect and the cited source is not reliable.
- "Offshoots of the term include pent-hectomillionaire, referring to those who are halfway to becoming billionaires.[21]": The ref is a 2012 Wall St Journal artible where "pent-hectomillionaire" appears just once, in parentheses, with a trailing "?", suggesting it's a nonce word. I can't find it in any dictionary and Google returns only the WSJ ref plus a bunch of pages copying this Wikipedia page. I don't think the term warrants inclusion in the page and so have removed the sentence.
- "In discussions on wealth inequality in the United States, hectomillionaires are said to be in the richest 0.01%, prompting calls for a redistribution of wealth.[22]: The ref is an opinion piece on Naked Capitalism and doesn't mention "hectomillionaire", "centimillionaire" nor "0.01%" except in the comments. I don't think the ref, should it meet WP:RS, confirms what is said in the sentence - the "redistribution of wealth" in the ref is aimed at "the 1% of earners", not 0.01%, and there's no clear indication of what this means in terms of xxx-millionaire status - the only example it gives of a "top earner" is income being $500,000 (half a million)/year. I've removed the sentence as it's not verified by the source.